Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Manmade Global Warming, A hoax? A Scam? or a Doomsday Cult? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1350)	7/27/2010 12:49:18 PM
From: J.B.C.	8 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4326

From Douthat's latest column defending "the Right and the Climate" position he did say this too... "Rising temperatures won't "destroy" the planet, as fear-mongers and celebrities like to say. But the evidence that carbon emissions are altering the planet's ecology is too convincing to ignore. Conservatives who dismiss climate change as a hoax are making a spectacle of their ignorance." Douthat is a journalist. Why is it you continue to listen to journalist and not to scientist? Yet, when someone else cites a non scientist you jump all over it: Message 26699538 you're either a hypocrite or a moron, or both.

To: Don Hurst who wrote (1350)	7/27/2010 11:19:36 PM
From: Hawkmoon	4 Recommendations Respond to of 4326

But the evidence that carbon emissions are altering the planet's ecology is too convincing to ignore. And those who IGNORE the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels are kept in balance by botanical forces (phytoplankton, plants, trees) are IGNORANT of basic science. Produce excess CO2 and it's PARAMOUNT that we facilitate the proper growing environment for plants in order to absorb and sequester it. Imagine a sponge in a pail and it's saturated with water. If I reduce the mass of the sponge, the volume of non-absorbed water is going to increase in that pail. To restore that balance, we need to reduce the amount of water, and/or RESTORE the mass of the sponge. Phytoplankton are a CO2 "sponge" and their population has declined by over 20-30% during the past 30 years. Consequently, CO2 levels have risen by about the same factor.. COINCIDENCE??.. I don't think so.. Conservatives who dismiss climate change as a hoax are making a spectacle of their ignorance." I don't "dismiss" climate change.. I see it FOUR TIMES A YEAR (sometimes only twice where I live.. ;0) when the season change. What I DISMISS is this contention that it's all anthropogenic. The planet has endured periods where CO2 levels were GREATLY HIGHER than today and the world survived and prospered. Where do you think all of our coal deposits came from? The carboniferous period. And coal is plant matter right? Sequestered hydrocarbons that once were floating around in the atmosphere before plants absorbed them. Furthermore, we've seen "global warming" occurring for THOUSANDS OF YEARS NOW. We used to have ice sheets a mile thick in North America.. Do you think that Neanderthal man was responsible? Then ask yourself why the ice age predominantly impacted North America and NOT South America and Africa? And just the other day, I heard some self-proclaimed "Doctor" (presumably scientist) in a panic about how the breaking off of some huge ice sheet in Antarctica could result in sea levels rising 30 feet. I suggest that he put a bunch of ice cubes in a bowl of water and see how much the water level rises as they melt. Now.. explain why ice caps were on Mars were melting as of 2007: In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. news.nationalgeographic.com Are you claiming that mankind is responsible for melting ice caps on Mars? MY BELIEF is that it's more to do with solar activity as well as the Milankovitch Cycles: en.wikipedia.org I'm personally more worried about us suddenly discovering some previously unknown asteroid on a collision course with earth than I am about "climate change". Yet, we're spending hundred of millions on CC research while only dedicating a paltry $5.8 million on searching for (NOT THWARTING OR DIVERTING) asteroids on a potential collision course with earth: In 2010, NASA will spend $5.8 million on what is officially dubbed "near-Earth object observations." The agency has proposed spending $20 million on the program in 2011, a nearly $15 million increase. Congress is now considering the proposal. aolnews.com As for Friedman... Do a search for his Mansion in Bethesda and see how "environmentally conscious" he actually is. It always seems to be people with lots of money telling people to do as they say, not as they do.. That sums up the CC/GW movement, IMO. Hawk